Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.06.2025
+ FAO 318/2016
R P BAJAJ .....Petitioner
versus
SHIELA KAPUR & ANR .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod K. Ahuja and Mr. Anshul
Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
INTRODUCTION:
1. The Appellant who is the original Plaintiff has challenged the
judgment dated 05.12.2015 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed by the learned
Additional District Judge-04, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
(“ ADJ ”), whereby the learned ADJ remanded the Suit of the Appellant to
the learned Civil Judge-02, (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (“ Trial
Court ”) along with direction to afford an opportunity to the Appellant to
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 1 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
correct valuation of the Suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction
and to pay requisite fees at the market value of the property bearing No. 13,
Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (“ suit property ”). The learned ADJ
held that the Appellant has sought declaration of ownership with regard to
the suit property along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction
and as such was required to pay ad valorem court fees, as per section 7
(iv)(c) or section 7 (v)(e) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (“ Court Fees Act ”)
after valuing the suit property at the market value.
2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed
by the learned ADJ, inter alia , on the grounds that (i) the Impugned
Judgment has not taken into consideration the provisions of the Suits
Valuation Act, 1887 (“ Suits Valuation Act ”) and (ii) the learned ADJ has
failed to consider that in another suit bearing Suit No. 18 / 2012 titled as
“ Vinod Gupta vs R. P. Bajaj ” filed by Respondent No. 2, who was the
original Defendant No. 2 for possession of the suit property and recovery of
mesne profits / damages for the use and occupation, Respondent No. 2 has
valued the said suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at ₹ 4200/-,
being the annual rent / licence fee paid by the Appellant.
3. On this ground, the Appellant has submitted that there cannot be two
different yardsticks for the same suit property.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
4. The plaint as filed by Appellant in the Suit for declaration as well as
consequential relief of permanent injunction declaring the Appellant is the
owner of suit property by adverse possession states that on 02.06.1975, the
Appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a plot measuring 2500
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 2 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
square yards situated in Kaushalya Park, Kauz Khas, New Delhi with
occupation of suit property measuring 440 sq. yards with constructed room.
5. As per the terms of this agreement, it was agreed between the
Appellant and Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi that the Appellant either himself or
through nominee undertakes to purchase the suit property at ₹350/- per
square yard and shall pay the amount in instalment. It was further mentioned
in the agreement that this occupation or intended sale of suit property is
subject to the condition that if Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi desires the suit
property or whole land to be vacated, it shall be done by the Appellant or
other occupants, who have been permitted by Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi on
receipt of one week notice asking that the land be vacated and in that case
the agreement will stand terminated and the only obligation on Late Smt.
Kaushalya Devi will be to refund the earnest money or any advances that
may have been received after deducting the retainer charges payable by the
Appellant for the use of the suit property for the period involved.
6. The Suit filed by the Appellant further states that the Appellant is in
possession of the suit property for more than 36 years and, therefore, he filed
the present Suit before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration as well as
consequential relief of permanent injunction declaring the Appellant is the
owner of suit property by adverse possession.
7. The valuation of the present suit is given by the Appellant in para 32
of the Suit filed before the learned Trial Court, and the same is as under-
“ 32. That the value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for
the relief of declaration is Rs.200/-. On which court fee of Rs.20/-
has been affixed and for permanent injunction is Rs.130/- in which
court fee of Rs.l3/- has been affixed. That as such the total value for
the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.330/-. As such the
total court fee of Rs.33/- has been affixed on the plaint by the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 3 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
plaintiff.”
8. At the stage of arguments on the preliminary issue whether the Suit
has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the
learned Trial Court, vide order dated 12.02.2015 observed that the suit
property is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction and rejected the plaint of the Appellant. The relevant extracts are
reproduced below-
“… The present suit is a suit for declaration as well as consequential relief
of permanent injunction declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit
property bearing no. 13, Kaushalaya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The
law is apparently clear that where a suit for declaratory decree along
with consequential relief is filed the amount of fee payable shall be
computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued.
The value of the suit property has not been mentioned in the prayer clause
nor the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee as well
as jurisdiction. The judgment relied upon by the defendant categorically
and squarely covers the present situation.
In view of the above observations and the proposition of law, it is held
that suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Same stands
rejected.”
9. Aggrieved by this rejection of the plaint by the learned Trial Court,
the Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned ADJ. The learned ADJ
set aside the order dated 12.02.2015 and remanded back the case of the
Appellant to the Trial Court with direction that the Appellant be afforded an
opportunity to correct the valuation of the Suit for the purpose of court fees
and jurisdiction and to pay the requisite court fees.
10. The learned ADJ also directed that the Appellant may ascertain the
correct value of the suit property, as per circle rate applicable in Delhi vide
Notification dated 22.09.2014 bearing No. F.l (953) /Regn.Br,/
DivCom./HQ/ 2014/5943. However, if the correct valuation of the suit
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 4 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
property for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is not possible to be
done even with the help of circle rates, the Appellant may be afforded an
opportunity to lead evidence for ascertaining the correct valuation of the suit
property.
11. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the learned Trial Court but also
challenged the order of remand passed by the learned ADJ before this Court
under Section 100 read with Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (“ CPC ”). The said appeal filed as regular second appeal was converted
into first appeal from order under Order 43 (u) read with Section 104 of
CPC pursuant to directions of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2016.
12. Following the demise of Respondent No. 1, the only contesting
Respondent remaining is Respondent No. 2. In relation to the substitution of
the legal representatives of Respondent No. 1, CM No. 15103/2017 was
filed under Order XXII Rule 4 and 11 of CPC. This Court disposed of the
said Application vide order dated 21.04.2017, observing that Respondent
No. 1 had never contested the Suit and that rejection of plaint of the
Appellant was on account of an application filed by Respondent No. 2
Subsequently, invoking the spirit of Order XXII Rule 4 (4) of CPC, this
Court held that it was not necessary to bring the legal representatives of the
deceased Respondent No. 1 on record. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 has
remained to be the sole contesting Respondent in the matter.
13. It is also pertinent to note that since 13.07.2016, this Appeal has been
listed on more than 30 (thirty) occasions and perusal of the record reflects
that the Respondent No. 2 has appeared only intermittently. An opportunity
was granted to the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 to appear and argue
the matter on 08.04.2025. However, despite a passover being granted when
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 5 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
the matter was taken up again, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2
failed to appear. Accordingly, the matter was heard ex-parte after giving
sufficient opportunity to Respondent No. 2 to appear and argue the matter.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
14. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned ADJ
failed to apply provisions of the Suits Valuation Act correctly and as the
Appellant has uninterrupted possession of the suit property, the suit property
should not be valued at market value. It was further submitted that the
Appellant should be allowed to value the suit property in the same manner
as was done by Respondent No. 2 in his suit for mesne profits and
possession against the Appellant.
15. The learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on decision
of this Court in Sheila Devi v. Kishan Lal Kalra , 1974 SCC OnLine Del
136 and the Supreme Court‟s decision in Commercial Aviation and Travel
Co. v. Vimla Pannalal , (1988) 3 SCC 423 to submit that plaintiff has a right
to place any valuation under paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees
Act.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
16. To determine the issues involved and evaluate the correctness of
findings rendered by the learned ADJ in the Impugned Judgment, it is
essential to examine the reliefs sought by the Appellant in the Suit filed
before the learned Trial Court. The reliefs sought by the Appellant in the
Suit are:
“ a) Decree for declaration may please be passed in favour of plaintiff and
against defendants thereby declaring the plaintiff is the owner of 13,
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 6 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
Kaushlya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 of the suit premises by
adverse possession.
b) Decree for Permanent Injunction be passed in favour of plaintiff and
against defendant no. 2 thereby restraining the defendant no. 2 from
interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the property in
question, the defendants be further restrained from dispossessing the
plaintiff except by due process of law from the property in question.
c) The suit of plaintiff may please be decreed with costs.”
17. It is not disputed that before the Suit can fall within the ambit of
Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the relief of injunction must be a
consequential relief to the relief of declaration.
18. This Court in Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta , 2010 SCC OnLine Del
506 : (2010) 116 DRJ 97 has observed that the term „consequential relief‟ as
used in Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, refers to a relief that fulfils
the following four conditions-
i. relief must follow directly from the substantive relief;
ii. its valuation is not capable of being definitely ascertained;
iii. it is not specifically provided for anywhere in the Court Fees
Act; and
iv. it cannot be claimed independently of the substantive relief.
19. Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act applies to suits where two
forms of relief — declaratory relief and consequential relief are so closely
linked that if the Court, exercising its discretion, declines to grant the
declaratory relief, the claim for consequential relief would necessarily
collapse. Thus, one of the essential conditions for a relief to be considered as
„consequential‟ is that it cannot be granted in the absence of declaratory
relief to which it is incidental.
20. In other words, the relief must be of such nature that plaintiff is
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 7 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
required to seek declaratory relief as a necessary precondition to claim the
consequential relief. It is against this backdrop that the question whether the
relief of injunction sought in the present case constitutes a consequential
relief must be considered.
21. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and
Others , (2008) 4 SCC 594, the Supreme Court reiterated the law as to when
a suit for permanent injunction can be filed on its own and when it is
necessary to also file for a declaration.
“Re: Question (i)
13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent
injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration
and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well
settled. We may refer to them briefly.
13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property
and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for
an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his
possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking
a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not
entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in
possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition,
if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the
relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in
dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and
there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will
have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of
injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute
and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily
the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and
injunction.”
22. The suit property in question is the subject of more than four distinct
civil suits. The first was the suit filed by Respondent No. 2 in 1998 against
Respondent No. 1, seeking specific performance of an agreement dated
21.05.1975, allegedly executed between Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi and
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 8 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
Respondent No. 2 for the sale of suit property. It is pertinent to note that the
1998 suit was decreed in favour of Respondent No. 2 vide judgment dated
09.11.2000, passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi, and pursuant thereto, a sale
deed relating to the suit property was executed on 30.10.2001 in favour of
Respondent No. 2 by Respondent No. 1. The second suit was filed by the
Appellant against Respondent No. 1, seeking declaration that the agreement
dated 30.10.2001 is null, void and not liable to be executable or operative
and for cancellation of the said sale deed dated 30.10.2001. The third suit
was filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant, seeking possession
and mesne profits in respect of the suit property. The fourth suit, which the
present Suit was filed by the Appellant, against both Respondents No. 1 and
2, seeking declaration as well as consequential relief of permanent
injunction declaring the Appellant is the owner of suit property by adverse
possession.
23. It is also pertinent to note that the agreement dated 02.06.1975 on
which the Appellant has relied on in the present Suit was executed between
one Mr. R.P. Kapur and the Appellant for the purchase of suit property.
Prima facie , it appears that there is no disclosure in regard to the capacity in
which Mr. R.P. Kapur, authorised himself to enter into and execute the said
agreement in favour of the Appellant.
24. In order to resolve the controversy involved in the present Appeal, the
provision of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and relevant
provisions of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 are reproduced below
respectively:
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 9 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
“8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain
suits.—Wherein suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act,
1870, Section 7, paragraphs v, vi and ix, and paragraph x, clause (d),
court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the
value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for
purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same.”
and
“7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.—The amount of fee
payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be
computed as follows:
(i) xxxxxx
(ii) xxxxxx
(iii) xxxxxx
(iv) In suits—
(a) xxxxxx
(b) xxxxxx
(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief.—to obtain a
declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed,
(d) for an injunction.—to obtain an injunction,
(e) for easements.—for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise
provided for) to arise out of land, and
(f) xxxxxx
(v) for possession of land, houses and gardens—In suits for the possession
of land, houses and gardens according to the value of the subject-matter;
and such value shall be deemed to be where the subject-matter is land,
and
(a) xxxxxx
(b) xxxxxx
(c) xxxxxx
(d) xxxxxx
(e) for houses and gardens-Where the subject-matter is a house or garden
according to the market-value of the house or garden;...”
25. Upon perusal of the plaint as filed by the Appellant in the present
Suit, the Appellant has acknowledged that Respondent No. 2 has created
clouds on the title of the Appellant. Therefore, by applying the principles as
laid down by the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar ( supra ), the
Appellant will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 10 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
of injunction. Based on the facts and circumstances as stated by the
Appellant in the plaint and considering the provisions of law as reproduced
above, it is clear that the relief of permanent injunction as sought by the
Appellant is a consequential relief to the declaratory relief.
26. As regards, the discretion of plaintiff to value the reliefs sought, it was
observed in Shiela Devi ( supra ) and Commercial Aviation ( supra ), that
though plaintiff is free to make own estimation of the relief sought in the
plaint and such valuation for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be
ordinarily accepted, and it is only in cases where it appears to the court on a
consideration of facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is
arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued,
the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same.
27. It was further observed where there are objective standards of
valuation or, in other words, the plaintiff or the court can reasonably value
the relief correctly on certain definite and positive materials, the plaintiff
will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation de hors such objective
standards or materials. It was further observed that the plaintiff cannot
whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for filing the suit most arbitrarily
where there are positive materials and / or objective standards of valuation
of the relief appearing on the face of the plaint.
28. In the present case, the nature of the relief sought being a declaration
of ownership by adverse possession along with a consequential injunction
and the existence of objective benchmarks such as the circle rate notification
dated 22.09.2014, provides a definite standard for valuation which the
Appellant has not taken into consideration.
29. In light of the above discussion, there is no infirmity in the directions
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 11 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42
given by the learned ADJ vide the Impugned Judgment. Accordingly, no
case for interference with the Impugned Judgment is made out by the
Appellant. Accordingly, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
JUNE 25, 2025
HK/ns/A
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
FAO 318/2016 Page 12 of 12
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:03:42